PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right from her jury trial conviction for embezzlement by an agent
of $1,000 or more, but less than $20,000, MCL 750.174(4)(a). Defendant was sentenced to
forty-five days in jail and sixty months of probation. We affirm.
Defendant?s sole issue on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support her
conviction for embezzlement. We disagree. When reviewing a claim of insufficient evidence,
this Court reviews the record de novo. People v Hawkins, 245 Mich App 439, 457; 628 NW2d
105 (2001). This Court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecutor and
determines whether a rational trier of fact could find the essential elements of the crime proven
beyond a reasonable doubt. People v Johnson, 460 Mich 720, 723; 597 NW2d 73 (1999). The
Court should not interfere with the jury?s role of determining the weight and credibility of
witnesses, but must draw all reasonable inferences and resolve credibility choices in support of
the jury?s verdict. People v Nowack, 462 Mich 392, 400; 614 NW2d 78 (2000). The elements of
embezzlement by an agent are:
(1) the money in question must belong to the principal, (2) the defendant must
have a relationship of trust with the principal as an agent or employee, (3) the
money must come into the defendant?s possession because of the relationship of
trust, (4) the defendant dishonestly disposed of or converted the money to his own
use or secreted the money, (5) the act must be without the consent of the
principal, and (6) at the time of conversion, the defendant intended to defraud or
cheat the principal. [People v Lueth, 253 Mich App 670, 683-684; 660 NW2d
322 (2002), citing People v Collins, 239 Mich App 125, 131; 607 NW2d 760
(1999).]

-2-
Defendant argues that the prosecution offered no evidence that defendant took the money
of her then-employer, A. S. Arbury Insurance (?the agency?). Defendant argues that no
investigation was done of the other two employees who had the same access to the computer
program as defendant, and that a reasonable doubt existed regarding whether defendant actually
converted any of the money to her own use. While the prosecution must prove the elements of
the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, it is not obligated to disprove every reasonable theory
consistent with innocence. Nowack, supra, p 400. The prosecution ?need only convince the jury
?in the face of whatever contradictory evidence the defendant may provide.?? Nowack, supra, p
400, quoting People v Konrad, 449 Mich 263, 273 n 6; 536 NW2d 517 (1995).
The prosecution?s theory of embezzlement rested on the fact that defendant was in charge
of receiving the agency?s receipts before they were sent to the bank, receiving funds obtained
through the bank after deposits were made, and reconciling the bank statements with the general
ledger. Defendant had been in charge of the bank reconciliation, which was where the
discrepancies were found. The agency?s outside CPA testified that her reconciliation of the
general ledger with bank statements revealed that there had been twenty-two separate instances
of receipts recorded in the general ledger that were never deposited in the bank accounts.
There was evidence that management relied on defendant, through a relationship of trust
as an employee, to properly carry out her work tasks, and evidence that defendant diverted funds
in the process. Defendant had the ?full one hundred percent trust? of the agency; defendant had
worked for one of the two owners of the agency for fifteen or sixteen years, and he testified that
he ?had no reason to think that [he] had to double check her work.?
Defendant argues that the evidence was consistent with the theory that one of the owners
was pocketing money while going to or coming back from the bank. However, the CPA testified
that if that were the case, the person reconciling the bank record and the general ledger would
have noted the discrepancies and notified the agency. Defendant never did so. Instead,
apparently fictitious, unaccounted for entries were made.
Defendant also argues that there was insufficient evidence of diversion of funds ?for her
own use.? This argument lacks merit. The prosecution presented evidence that some of the
unaccounted for ledger entries were for payment of insurance premiums for defendant?s family?s
insurance. A rational jury could conclude that this diversion was for defendant?s own use. There
was evidence that money was diverted from the company?s account, and a logical inference
would be that it was put to personal use by the embezzler. The CPA testified to (1) discrepancies
between receipts indicated on the general ledger and amounts that made it into the bank
accounts; and (2) alleged bank transfers to cover insurance premiums for defendant?s family?s
insurance that were never received. The jury was the judge of the credibility of witnesses, and
the jury evidently chose to credit the CPA?s testimony. Nowack, supra, p 400.
There was also circumstantial proof of intent to defraud. The proofs of cover-up entries
in the general ledger made it look like the ledger reconciled with the bank statements, when in
reality there were discrepancies. When defendant?s successor requested that the two go over the
process of reconciling the bank records and the agency?s ledger, defendant acted nervous and
?wanted to, perhaps, take them home with her to finish reconciling and, you know, looking over
the records at home.? Defendant did not return to further train her successor. Moreover,
defendant never brought the discrepancies to her employer?s attention. The CPA testified that

-3-
?those deposits had actually been cleared off the reconciliation.? ?The person that is doing the
reconciliation [i.e., defendant] would be clearing those things off or making some sort of entry to
cover it or to make it balance.?
The prosecutor need not disprove every plausible theory in order for the verdict to be
supported by sufficient evidence. Nowack, supra, p 400. A rational trier of fact could find all
the elements of embezzlement proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Janet T. Neff